Dismissed

Yakoob Khan and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2023CRLA/863/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed against an order issuing a recovery warrant against sureties. The Appellants challenged the order claiming the accused was subsequently granted bail. The Court found no illegality in the order as the accused had defaulted initially. Appeal dismissed; Appellants directed to deposit surety amount.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. Appellants directed to deposit the surety amount within a month before the court concerned.

Yakoob Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 863 of 2006

¶3

Appellant :- Yakoob Khan And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- D.K. Singh Somvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶5

None appeared on behalf of the appellants.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. for the State is present.

¶7

It transpires from the office report dated 11.01.2023, C.J.M., Lakhimpur Kheri has reported that both the appellants are alive and none of them is present.

¶8

The present appeal is filed under section 449 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18.04.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court no. 2, Kheri in Case No. 16 of 2005, under section 446 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Tikuniya District- Kheri, directing for issuance of recovery warrant against the sureties.

¶9

As per version of appellants the Criminal Case No. 133 of 2003 under section 8/18 of N.D.P.S. Act case was registered and in this case accused has been absconded and on 19.10.2005. He moved an application for recall of warrant in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kheri, but his prayer was rejected and the accused was sent to jail.

¶10

Accused was granted bail by this Court on 08.12.2005 and later on recovery warrant has been issued on 30.09.2005 against the present appellants to deposit an amount of sureties. The accused taking bail in this case on 08.12.2005 thereafter, the appellants moved an application under section 446 (3) Cr.P.C. before Hon'ble Court F.T.C. II, Kheri, for liability of the appellants be

¶11

discharged but the same has been rejected in non-presence. In these circumstances, it is prayed to set aside the impugned order.

¶12

As per the State counsel, in the appeal no ground is mentioned to set aside, except that the accused appeared before the Court and were granted bail on 08.12.2005 by this Court.

¶13

From perusal of the order it appears that against sureties recovery warrant was issued as the accused has defaulted in appearing before the Court. Though, the accused has appeared later on and was granted bail but there is no illegality in the impugned order which has been passed correctly in the circumstances of the case.

¶14

Accordingly, appeal is dismissed . Appellants are directed to deposit the surety amount within a month before the court concerned.

¶15

Let the record of the trial court be sent back to the court concerned.

¶16

Order Date :- 27.7.2023 Mayank

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Yakoob Khan and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yakoob Khan and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhtar Raza Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secretary Home Deptt. and Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Radhey Shyam Singh and Another. Vs State of U.P.

Sahab Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and Another

Nand Kishore Thru. Father Raja Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Gautam Nishad Thru. His Mother Smt. Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and 3 Others